[T]he strategists there in the Obama campaign have got to look at a diplomatic way of replacing Joe Biden on the ticket with Hillary. And I don't want to throw out that suggestion and have them actually accept the suggestion because then an Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket would have a darn good chance of winning.

Don't you love the role of Sarah Palin in American politics? On the sidelines... looming...

210 comments:

The trouble is, by going out and saying it herself, Sarah Palin has poisoned the well. How can the Obama campaign pull the switch now without looking like they're following (gulp!) Sarah Palin's suggestion?

Blackfive contributes to the Hiliscare by noting the President's schedule today:

This chills my bones.

10:45AM THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT meet with Secretary of State Clinton. Oval Office. Closed Press. 12:30PM THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT meet for lunch.Private Dining Room. Closed Press.

Old RPM Daddy said..."The trouble is, by going out and saying it herself, Sarah Palin has poisoned the well. How can the Obama campaign pull the switch now without looking like they're following (gulp!) Sarah Palin's suggestion?"

This is why Sarah Palin is a media genius! She has made it impossible for the Obama camp to do this game-changing thing.

Freder: And, just like Condi Rice as potential VP, the talk of dumping the drag on the ticket has been happening since people started looking at 2012. There were even questions during the election of 2008 if Biden would stick around for both terms.

It's legitimate to think about. Stop trying to make thinking things you don't like seem radical and horrible.

I'm sorry but Ms Clinton is looking old, fat, jowly and tired. I dont think she is up for anything like this. Buts lets assume that she in fact throws herself on this grenade--we then have Slow Joe Biden as a loose cannon and he defects to the Republicans--Ahhh--its an exotic conspiracy--let Slow Joe, driven from the dems, become a spokesperson to the Republicans and embarass them with his stupidy. Yes it all makes sense now. (sarcasm off)

The voters of 2008, in an act of predatory voting, got Mr. Obama into a house that was way too big for him. Having shown that he couldn't handle it, would the voters let him refinance with HRC as a co-signer?

If she accepts and they win the election and then Obama continues the same Obamanomics policies, the economy would suck another 4 years so they would be run out of office and Hillary would never be president.

bbkingfish said... Looks like Bill Kristol is trying to deflect some media attention away from the Ryan disaster.

Oh really?

Survey USA polled registered voters in the key swing state [Florida] and put Ryan’s favorability rating at a +11, 43/32His best numbers come from seniors at 53/30, who also have the highest familiarity with Ryan’s economic proposals (81 percent). Fifty-nine percent of Floridians rated the choice of Ryan as excellent (28 percent) or good (31 percent), with 75 percent of seniors agreeing. Overall, a majority of registered voters in Florida (57 percent) say Ryan makes them more likely to vote for Romney, including 64 percent of seniors – and 62 percent of those under 35 years of age.

It's a loser for Urkel either way. Not that he's already a loser to begin with, but if he replaces Biden, he will be seen as someone who is unwilling to ride out the wave with anyone. If he can't trust his VP, then that means he can't keep him in check. That in turn would paint an already negative stigma that he's a loser and he picks losers who do loser things.

If he chooses Hillary and if she accepts, then you have the problem of an Alpha male trying to usurp or supplant a beta male. You decide who is who. But then, it will be couched against the venomous hatred that the clintons have for the Obama's to begin with. Hillary's camp is the one who first floated the birther balloon. Hillary's camp is the first one to float the college credentials balloon.

You know what. It's not gonna happen. Urkel hates the clintons as much as they hate him. Urkel is a score keeper. He knows who's slighted him and why and he's just a vindictive motherfucker to begin with. The Chicago Way is hard to shake.

AJ: If Obama gets elected in 2012, despite the economy, I have every reason to believe someone else could be elected in 2016 despite the economy. Besides, with Hillary in the VP slot and having more access to the President, she'll probably convince him to compromise, especially since Holder, Rahm and the more strident of Obama's inner circle will finally be gone for good.

That makes me wonder why she gave up a Senator for life position to be SoS. It was obvious there was little love lost between the two camps and I have to wonder why she took the job. Moreso being a lackluster SoS.

Dumping Biden, especially at this point would be a horrible move and basically confirm he was a lousy choice from day one.

"I've had a pet theory for some time that Bill Clinton will bury the fatal dagger when the time comes."

And nobody will be able to prove a thing... I mean, Presidents ALWAYS fall asleep on railroad tracks, or shoot themselves in the head when nobody around them thought there was anything wrong, or end up in a mysterious airplane explosion...

I am with mid-life lawyer--I doubt that Mr Clinton has forgotten how he had the facist card played against him during Ms Clinton's primary shot in south carolina. I dont doubt he (Mr Clinton) will be heard from again.

Biden may be a liability, but the Obama bus is running out of passengers to blame for the bad driving. If you are on that bus, you really need to wise up. His isn't the only bus running, and the driver on the other one at least has successfully driven something before.

On paper Hillary as VP is a good idea for Obama. After the surprisingly strong reception of Romney's Ryan pick, in spite of relentless sandbagging from Democrats and the media, Obama needs a good positive counterpunch.

God knows Biden has become enough of an embarrassment and no one would miss him as VP. Even Democrats have got to know that Paul Ryan will make mincemeat of Biden in debate.

Hillary works. She would bring a breath of fresh air to the stale Obama campaign. As a Romney supporter, I'd rather she was not on the ticket.

Sure Obama and the Clintons hate each other, but they all want power. I believe Obama is desperate enough to take her on and I don't see that much downside for Hillary.

Oddly, I think the worst outcome for Hillary is if they win and she has to spend another four years in the background helping Obama. If they lose, she becomes the head of the Democratic party and all the more powerful to run against Romney in 2016, if she wants, when she is fresh and Romney is the battered incumbent. (Make no mistake. Romney will be battered if he attempts what he says he will.)

Hillary is about power. She has the potential to be the Thatcher of the American left.

"If they win, and we get four more years of Obamanomics, this country won't elect another Democratic President for 20 years."

-- Ah, to clarify, she may not be -elected- in 2016, but she is in as the nominee. Well, as in as she was in 2008. So, there's that potentially beautiful moment too, where she loses the 2016 nomination after hitching to Obama and dragging him across the finish line.

Obama, though personally far-left, could play the moderate. Hillary, though personally more non-ideological, would STILL end up coming off as a more extreme lefty, since, lusting for power, she has played the part to get support from her base.

I would also suggest that many Secretaries of State are dim bulbs. George Marshall, iMO a truly great American, conceived the Marshall Plan for Europe. Dean Acheson, on the other hand forgot to include Korea in the American sphere of influence and probably abetted the NORk/ChiCom invasion. Can anyone tell me what Secretaries of State have furthered American interests abroad? Oh--I forgot: Madeline Albright could do the Macarena.

BTW: would someone school me on Ms Clinton's accomplishments as the secretary of state? I am really interested in knowning.

I understand your skepticism -- I sure don't see any accomplishments either -- but the people likely to vote for an Obama / Hillary ticket aren't bothered by her record as SoS. They'll just be happy to see a stronger ticket to keep extremist Republicans out of the White House.

These voters will be excited by Hillary as VP. They will perceive her as a breath of fresh air. (Next to Joe Biden almost anyone is.) They will see her as their Thatcher if she becomes president, doesn't entirely screw it up, and wins a second term.

AllenS--and there was the sad episode of throwing our east european allies out the window; and of course, the keystone pipeline deal that apparently convinced our Canadian allies that the US was not to be trusted--And of course the complicity on non-action in Fast and Furious wherein the SecState should have responded to the program--Hell--at last Madeline notsoBright could at least do the macarena.

Joey Plugs should never have been on the ticket in the first place. However, he fills a roll that few others could - he makes Obama look like a genius. Today, the two men have lunch together; it is the only hour in the week that Barack is indeed the smartest guy in the room and Obama will not trade that for anything.

Obama, after listening to the speech, in the E! or People interview, I forget which, seemed a bit harder on Biden for the whole thing. Maybe he'll use that as his way to get rid of Biden. "That sort of language is unacceptable at this level." Blah, blah, blah.

But, no. Realistically? Short of Biden suffering an actual physical/medical issue, he's on the ticket, is my guess.

Matthew Sablan said...".. the Ryan disaster that has Romney continuing to gain in the polls? That disaster?"

In the last four days:

1.) the "intellectual leader" of the GOP has thrown his guru, Ayn Rand, under the bus

2.) he has disavowed all his votes in Congress for eight years worth of Bush deficit-busters

3.) He has disavowed the "Ryan Plan"

4.) He has embraced big budget increases for the Pentagon, big tax cuts for the rich, promised to protect Medicare and Social Security...a huge deficit-busting parlay of goodies for everybody at no cost to anyone

5.) Yesterday, Ryan's "Personhood" legislation started to get some attention in the media; betting is already open on how long it will take Ryan to run away from that bit of lunacy.

At this rate, by this time next week Ryan will have moved so far to the left that Obama might replace Biden with him.

As for those polls, Matthew, has there been as big a bump as McCain got in the two weeks after he picked Palin? We all know how that turned out. August polls don't mean very much.

Jason: I can see your reasoning, to a point. However, the upside is that Hillary solidifies her position as party leader of her supporters and Obama loyalists.

Assuming she get past her animus towards Obama, I don't see it as a bad move for her.

I dont disagree with that, but at the same time I think her animus towards Obama is quite fierce. They dont like each other one bit, and it shows. On top of that, I dont think she would want to attach herself to a potential losing ticket at this stage in her political career. She'd be better off quitting as SoS and running on her own in 2016. And Obama is arrogant enough to think that he wont pick anyone that will "steal his thunder"...Hillary would do that.

Hillary would prove more competent than Biden and will put up a better show vs. Ryan, but at the same time Ryan will show people real quick that Hillary isnt Bill with his knowledge and expertise on economics and the budget.

Dems can say what they want, but Romney's pick of Ryan has put them in a real bind.

1.) the "intellectual leader" of the GOP has thrown his guru, Ayn Rand, under the bus--> He has never been a pure Randian; simply adopted parts of her philosophy that work. Anyone who has pretended he was an Objectivist is a liar.

2.) he has disavowed all his votes in Congress for eight years worth of Bush deficit-busters--> That's again just a lie.

3.) He has disavowed the "Ryan Plan"--> He has compromised with Romney to find a plan that they can agree on? The horror! Compromise!

4.) He has embraced big budget increases for the Pentagon, big tax cuts for the rich, promised to protect Medicare and Social Security...a huge deficit-busting parlay of goodies for everybody at no cost to anyone--> Go read his actually proposed budgets.

5.) Yesterday, Ryan's "Personhood" legislation started to get some attention in the media; betting is already open on how long it will take Ryan to run away from that bit of lunacy.--> Everything I've seen about the "Personhood" legislation has been a lie. Link me to the legislation or drop it.

At this rate, by this time next week Ryan will have moved so far to the left that Obama might replace Biden with him.

He's done none of the things of which you speak.

I realize the Ryan selection has Dems scared out of their wits, but coming up with lies wont help. Ryan doesnt shy away from interviews or questions like the current administration. Hell, he's been on MSNBC at least once per week for about 3 years now.

Dems are trying to make Ryan afraid, because they were successful in making Sarah Palin afraid. Its not going to work.

"To Democrats dumping Biden will not make Obama look incompetent. I assure you, they will like it. In fact to them it will look like Obama's got his mojo back."

The point is, "Who cares?"

Obama can look good to the Democratic Party base, who was going to vote for him anyway, and would vote for a Democrat if she were the bastard daughter of Pol Pot and a crack whore, with all the worst qualities of each.

There is no doubt that Hillary would improve Obama chances, and I bet they are seriously considering it. She would bring back a lot of voters who are abandoning Obama or voted against him because of how he treated her in 08. Many people need just the smallest excuse to vote the Dem ticket and explain away why they would vote for Obama again. That excuse is: "I'm not voting for him, I'm voting for her." Sure that's stupid, QED

The problem is that there is no really good reason to dump the very loyal Biden, other than to get a few votes. He hasn't really done anything but be his old reliable self, and you picked him.

SO if Hillary is the candidate, we can bring up F&F, the pipeline, the Bamster handing more of us to Russia, the sub parked off our coast for a month, the new Russian base in Cuba and Canadian relations & the ME?

Sweet.

Gotta love progressives, always looking to the past, back to the60s & 70s we go.

It's wonderful watching Sarah play mind games with Obama. She's piling on, in a nice lady-like way, after Rudy's more brutal, but equally accurate, assessment of Biden's mental capacities last week.

Obama's in a tough spot with Biden, and the best way to make it tougher is to get under his (very thin) skin with ridicule. Obama could never accept the image of his taking advice from Sarah, and in the process admitting that he had picked an incompetent boob for a running mate. But all the talk about dumping Biden just calls attention to the unavoidable reality of Biden's over-the-top incompetent boobiness. Now everyone is waiting for Biden to do it again (and again and ...), while also watching Team Obama squirm. There just aren't enough funerals in Argentina that urgently require Biden's attendance to keep him under wraps for the next three months. And the VP debate in Oct has now become a must watch, as everyone wants to see how Biden deals mano-a-mano with Ryan.

"At this rate, by this time next week Ryan will have moved so far to the left that Obama might replace Biden with him."

So you like him too? Great! Why are you attacking this leftist choice. You got the creator of Romneycare, with a leftist VP. What more could you want? Vote Repub and get the real deal, unless you are just talking shit.

Something else to keep in mind, and that is that Obama doesn't have that long to make the choice. Someone at JOM pointed out that they had until maybe the end of the 1st week in Sept. to change the ticket. And, this wouldn't be like NJ, when Sen. Lautenberg was switched in at the last minute, after the deadline - plenty of states have Rep. Secs. of State who are going to balk at such a putatively illegal move.

President Obama is not someone who can make quick, decisive decisions. Romney could do this, as could GW Bush. But, my bet is that Obama would more likely dawdle his way through the deadline three weeks from now.

Biden's risk for aneurysm has increased exponentially since yesterday.

Clinton would be a real banana if she agreed to be the second banana. If the ticket wins, it's Obama's win, he can sideline her from day 1. When has Obama ever kept his promises? He had claimed Bush's Iraq win as his before he was inaugurated. Would he give Hillary credits for saving his butts? Unless he has aneurysm.

If they lost, it would be Hillary's fault. Hillary would never have a chance in 2016.

"Obama would more likely dawdle his way through the deadline three weeks from now."

He could also grossly overestimate the chances of people saying "yes", and think he has plenty of time. It would look really bad if word got out that he offered the slot to 10 people, and all them told him where to stick it.

Now given that Hillary would be a lot smarter to aim for running in 2016 against a Republican incumbent than to be seen as a "more of the same" candidate from a failed administration, I'm sure she wouldn't leak that kind of information, now, would she?

Obama is already flailing. Otherwise, there would be little concern about whether he gets reelected, right? And the economy is in the toilet, with most fixes involving us taking our lumps, which is never popular. Even if Romney is elected and does the best job in history, he's still going to be vulnerable in 2016.

Republicans are being “ridiculous” and are trying to “distract attention” with their focus on Vice President Biden and his controversial comments earlier this week, White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

"I've had a pet theory for some time that Bill Clinton will bury the fatal dagger when the time comes."

And nobody will be able to prove a thing... I mean, Presidents ALWAYS fall asleep on railroad tracks, or shoot themselves in the head when nobody around them thought there was anything wrong, or end up in a mysterious airplane explosion...

Let me help you out RogerD:

From Wikipedia - "A metaphor is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile."

A couple more things to keep in mind about Hillary! She is fully vetted - meaning in this case, that her record of financial self-dealing and the like is well known, dating from her days in AK, all the way up to her trading Presidential pardons for campaign contributions and walking out with the WH silver in her luggage. The first difference this time is that the Republicans now also have her tenure as Sec. of State to use against here, where she greatly increased the chances of a middle eastern war by pushing the Muslim Brotherhood and abandoning our putative ally in Egypt in their favor. So, with Hillary! on the ticket, the Republicans could not only ask whether you are better of financially, but also whether you feel more secure from foreign dangers.

The Dems seem to think that there is nothing wrong with stealing from the American public, as long as it is done at a high enough level. So, no one was surprised when the Holder DoJ decided not to prosecute anyone for the banking meltdown necessitating TARP, Dodd-Frank, etc., esp. when it turned out that most of the top tier at the DoJ came from law firms representing the banks that caused the problems. More egregious, of course, was giving mega-bundler Jon Corzine a free pass this week, despite overseeing the looting of billions from customer accounts. So, Hillary! would likely be excused for her self-dealings and corruption - from their point of view, that is just what politicians do.

But, I don't see that playing well with the general electorate. Hundreds of billions have already been squandered and shoveled to friends, families, and cronies during the Obama Administration. Do the Dems really want this to become even more of an issue with one of the more egregious grifters being put a heart beat away from the Presidency? (Of course, she probably wouldn't abscond with the WH silver this time, since they presumably have a full set already).

Great strategy by Republicans to come out and say he should do it now.

If I were to come up with a plan to get rid of my vice president for political reasons, I would have the vice president find some reason to resign.... say he is having health problems.

However, you can't do that now that everyone (prompted by Palin) is saying he should go for political reasons.

If you fire your VP for political reasons, it makes you look bad - like you made a huge mistake in picking him... It just highlights another bad choice made by Obama to go along with all the other bad choices.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where Biden "decides" to bow out because of some suddenly-discovered new health problem or something. That would be the only way that the Obama camp could save face while replacing him on the ticket.

The trouble with that scheme, though, is that if they gave the matter ANY thought, they'd quickly realize it would never work because Crazy Joe wouldn't be able to keep his story straight. Plus you know he'd want to keep giving interviews to the press, and in the process, he'd not only mix up his stories about why he left, he'd accidentally reveal all kinds of details about this White House, and so he'd only dig an even deeper hole for the Obama team.

Another thing to keep in mind about Hillary! is that putting her on the ballot will just ratchet up the contributions, esp. to Romney. The woman is a lightening rod, esp. for the right. Much more, I think, that her husband ever was.

Also, who would Obama pick besides Hillary!? Who has been fully vetted? I would suggest that the Dems have a very weak bench, in comparison with the Republicans. Partly, it is because of machine politics, and partly because of life-time Congressional seats. Right before Teddy K died, Kerry was the junior Senator from MA, and had been so for over 20 years. That is just emblematic of the Dems problem there - you can't build a good bench in politics without allowing the younger politicians to come to prominence. So, in 2008, it should have been no surprise that of the three Dem candidates, two were corrupt, and the third a clean cut articulate whitewashed cipher who could speak well with a teleprompter. The Dems have very few politicians on their bench who are young enough and smart enough to go at it with Ryan, and most of the ones they have are very likely dirty (which is where the vetting comes in).

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where Biden "decides" to bow out because of some suddenly-discovered new health problem or something. That would be the only way that the Obama camp could save face while replacing him on the ticket.

No. I'm saying that Biden steps down for the good of the party and explains it like that. Obama gets a stronger ticket. Biden gets to go out on a note of nobility plus some sweeteners that we may never know.

In 1968 LBJ announced that he would not run for president again and his approval ratings soared from 36% to 49%.

I am also not sure that Biden would go gracefully. Why should he? He likes the perks, the private jets, limos, all the attention to his ramblings, etc. He has never seemed to be one to take a hit for his team.

And, yes, it would be quite humorous for all the rest of us watching him try to keep a story straight, esp. one that he really wasn't fully invested in. The election season would continue to highlight his gaffes, but now the Obama people would have even less control over him. Great fun for everyone, except for the Obama campaign staff. Much safer, I think, to just minimize the amount of time that Biden is allowed out in public.

Creeley23 wrote: No. I'm saying that Biden steps down for the good of the party and explains it like that. Obama gets a stronger ticket. Biden gets to go out on a note of nobility plus some sweeteners that we may never know.

In 1968 LBJ announced that he would not run for president again and his approval ratings soared from 36% to 49%.

As I said, though, I can't imagine this working with Biden because he's Biden. Besides, if he bowed out for "the strength of the ticket," it would mean admitting he's a liability, which would automatically imply that he'd be pressured to leave. And admitting that he's a liability would push Obama's poor decision-making further into the spotlight. It seems hard to believe now, but when Obama chose Biden in 2008, some pundits actually talked about how Biden added experience and a certain level of "gravitas" to the ticket. Although anyone with a decent memory about Biden knew that line was already a joke, it has only become more of one, and Biden's departure would only highlight it.

"69,456,897 people voted for Obama. Where were all those Democratic voters who voted against Obama because of how he treated Clinton?"

I'm not saying they voted against Obama last time. Even though he dissed them, he was still the first Black President and these types are not going to be "on the wrong side of history" for anything, but now they've assuaged the guilt, and are free to vote him out, so some would vote Romney now (He's not the hated Bush). Once Hillary is on the ticket they would be voting against the first woman VP, the Dems, the Black guy, and a ticket that has at least one person they respect. That's a bridge too far and enough to keep them in the Dem column one more time. Hillary is a plus for sure.

I can make a good case for swapping out Biden for Hillary, but I'll admit I doubt it will happen.

I suspect the animosity between the Obama and Clinton camps is too great. Plus Obama is running a defensive campaign where he provides Romney with as few targets as possible while letting Romney take the risks and the hits.

And admitting that [Biden]'s a liability would push Obama's poor decision-making further into the spotlight.

Kurt: If Obama and Biden were Republicans, sure. But they are Democrats. The MSM will cover for Obama and start squealing again about Obama's brilliance and game. Those who voted for Obama in 2008 will be grateful not to see Biden on the ticket and will feel renewed excitement about the race, especially Hillary voters from last time.

In terms of the campaign, I see little downside to an Obama / Clinton ticket.

I can't imagine Hillary and Bill wanting to have their brand name attached to the continual downward spiral that seems to be the Obama agenda.

If they were to be able to get into office as VP (and I say they, because they are perceived as a team) and take control of the agenda and turn things around....THEN they might consider it. However, Obama "Teh WON" has too much ego to allow someone else to begin to pull the strings, especially in such an obvious way. A sudden brain/personality transplant from the Clintons to Obama would be too obvious and the Narcissist in Chief would not stand for it.

3) Obama does not want to win that bad. If Obama loses he can blame the electorate for not appreciating him, but if he wins, he will lose the pass the blame option he has lived by. His best outcome is to lose, because he knows his policies will not work, just like everyone else does. He also does not think Romney can fix it, so he can say afterward that he just needed the second term. He can even run again. Losing IS an option for this guy, and maybe his best.

I also don't think Obama plays Presidential politics primarily to win - he plays to look good. That's why Biden is the VP. If Obama thinks he may smell sweeter in the long run by losing, then although he will still try to win, he won't try hard enough, like dumping Biden, when Joe is such a great excuse later for why he lost. Down deep, it's all about the narcissist.

After he loses the meme will be all about the mistake of Biden, and how Obama just didn't want it bad enough.

Actually, I think Obama doesn't really want to win (he doesn't really like the job of being President), but he also doesn't want to lose (he hates being a loser).

So he's conflicted... which makes him less effective.

But I disagree that he thinks his policies will work. I'm sure that by now, he knows they won't. He's just of the type that can't bring himself to accept that his policies are exactly backwards, due to his ideology.

Let's assume for the sake of argument Hillary gets the VP slot. By 2016 she will be 70. First off, I think voters are not enamored with someone that old as President. Second and its the ugly truth, she is not going to come off as a old likable Thatcher type but a haggard looking shrill.

For Joe Biden, the recent gaffes are interesting, amusing at best. But to see the essence of the man and his problems, go back to the Democratic primary race fro the 1988 nomination. In late summer 1987 Biden was followed for a day on the campaign trail by CSPAN (which they did for all of the candidates). After shooting a day of video, they edited it down into a 90 minute cinema verité style documentary about what it is like to go around New Hampshire, making stump speeches, eating corn dogs and kissing babies, etc.

In the footage that CSPAN ran about Biden (literally named “A day on the campaign trail with Sen. Joseph Biden”), was an incident captured after he had spoken in front of a group of local teachers. After he finished his remarks and was on his way out he was asked some fairly critical questions by someone in the audience and there was a brief, tense exchange.

To the listener’s question, Biden responded by explaining that he had earned some particular academic scholarship to law school, that he received certain awards for high GPA and had participated in law review, and claimed other academic awards. The question he was asked was never answered and the audience member stood there somewhat dumbfounded as Biden walked away. The video aired about 7 days after it was shot and in the intervening time CBS ran the 60 Minutes segment on the Neil Kinnock speech that Biden delivered verbatim (including the recollection of his father as a coal miner.) One reporter looked into the factual basis for all claims of academic achievement that Biden had made on the CSPAN tape and found them to be false. Between the uproar coming from the 60 Minutes presentation and the reaction to the CSPAN segment, Biden withdrew from the primary campaign.

The key insight wasn't the fact that he was lying about the grades and awards, though he certainly was. It was the purest example of arrogance – I am better than you, therefore I win the argument (be it on X, Y or Z)!

I was astonished that he had any kind of capability inside or outside of Delaware politics after that. I was amazed that no one dredged up the CSPAN footage when Obama selected him. Sure the press has developed a well exercised “Oh, it's just Joe!” reflex when he commits yet another gaffe. But what earned Biden this special protection from consideration of what it means about him, his capability, his reliability and his fitness for high office?

See, I don't see Obama being willing to sac the presidency to keep Biden for any reason. Obama has never shown himself to be loyal to a fault, unlike the most recent Bush, who did make errors in judgment based on loyalty to his people. Obama? Has any Obama decision ever been to sacrifice Obama to protect one of his people? He leads from behind.

On the other hand, I also don't see Obama willing to take the hit that dumping Biden would cause. It could go either way, but I think he thinks he can still win, which he might be able to. So, it's less risky to keep Biden than to swap. He's fairly risk averse, so that's another point in the keep Biden camp.

My responses to your responses to my five points below (brief, since your "arguments", such as they are, don't merit much of a comeback)

On numbers 1, 2, and 5...

In debating, "Liar, liar pants on fire," is not scored as a valid response. I guess to respond on your level, I'd have to say, "I know you are, but what am I?"

On number 3...

Nice spin, but you must have missed Ryan's first solo interview with Brit Hume on Fox the other day.

On number 4...

You mean, his actual budget plans that he ran away from in that same interview? Like the $500B in Medicare cuts, and partial Social Security privatization he has disavowed, in that interview, and elsewhere.

As for his relationship with Rand, You Tube is your friend...check out the audio of his keynote speech at the 2005 annual meeting of the Atlas Society..."You can't find another thinker or writer who does a better job of laying out the MORAL case for capitalism than Ayn Rand." -Paul Ryan, 2005

Smart guys on the Romney team must have told Ryan that, even though it might work in his part of Wisconsin, you just can't run in a national election as a devotee of the morality of an avowed atheist.

On point 1, no. You're still wrong here. Sorry; I think some of Ayn Rand's points are correct, and have some relation to other philosophies. That does not make me an Objectivist. What you're trying to do with Ryan is take some agreement and stretch it into total agreement. It is logically unsound and wrong.

--> Show a quote where he disavowed all of his votes over the past few years for #2. I'm OK with you taking the time to show your work.

--> On 3: The Ryan plan is a serious plan. It may take some compromise or give and take to get a version or a permutation of it passed. Big deal; time changes. He is not saying what you want it to appear to be, which is: "My plan was a total failure. Burn it and start anew."

--> You keep -saying- he has disavowed things, but yet, not -showing.- There's a value in proving an assertion. A value that means I should take the assertion seriously instead of dismissing it as baseless.

Without proof, it is baseless. If you want me to treat it with anything more than mild scorn and disdain, actually, you know, give it a base.

It looks like Biden has survived to gaffe another day. I think it is remarkable that both McCain and Palin talked about The Comrade replacing Biden with Hillary yesterday and the offish Obama Team completely went for it and insulted both McCain and Palin in regards to their comments. Did they really not notice that it was primarily just those two, among politicians, making noise about it? I think Palin and McCain worked together on that one, with others, and it worked beautifully.

Last year I stated that my biggest fear was Hillary being added to the ticket. In fact, I have felt all along that it is the only way Zero could win again. Many people I know now realize that they should have voted for Hillary over Zero. I mean people who were going to vote Democrat.

I was afraid that if she joined the ticket, many could say they were voting for her, not The Comrade. Another guilt vote, ironically, an echo of the white-guilt vote of 2008.

Nonsense. It is deeply unserious. It claims it will close tax loopholes without specifying which ones. It will almost lower taxes on the very rich while slashing entitlements and raising taxes on every one but the rich. It doesn't touch, and even increases, defense spending.

Even after all that nonsense, to balance the budget, Ryan assumes completely unrealistic growth and employment levels (2.8% UE by 2021?!). And even then, can only get to balance in 2030. He doesn't explain how he will increase revenue collection as a percentage of the GDP while simultaneously slashing rates.

"Her age really won't be that big of a deal as long as she avoids a health scare."

Matthew, here you are proving that old adage about blind pigs finding acorns.

I agree it would be hard for the GOP to make a big deal about Hillary's age. After all, she's younger than Mitt!

This info is so easy to find that even you can do it. I will not supply you with references like I did above, since you don't acknowledge them when I give them to you and you just ask for more "proof."

Matt, never for one minute have I entertained the notion that I might be able to change your mind about anything. I respect your right, and the right of all the fair and balanced folks who habituate this site, to cleave to whatever positions you like, no matter how elusive your logic might seem to me.

I like Joe, seems like a decent person. I'd be comfortable if he had to step into the presidency. I like Hillary a lot as well, and if we were just starting I might pick her over Biden. But I see no reason to change.

"Nonsense. It is deeply unserious."--> Except that's wrong, and even partisan Democrats at the time agreed it was serious. But go ahead, keep lying. In four or eight years, I'll get to hear how the new crop of candidates should be "Moderate and serious like Paul Ryan." Think, if only the left hadn't savaged Bush so horribly and memorably, you'd be able to use him as your paragon of Republican even handedness instead of just having to pretend everyone is more radical than King Radical.

Just a reminder for everyone. The Ryan plan -increases spending- and -increases revenue generation (i.e., taxes)- in the short term at a rate higher than average spending/taxes. This is why conservatives are antsy about Ryan's plan.

Ryan's plan is a -compromise- plan designed to be workable in the current political climate. And it would be, if the left could stop lying about it for just a minute. It, or a plan like it, could easily gain traction and start to lead to fruitful discussion.

But lying and stirring up hate against Ryan is more important. Don't lie about the Ryan plan when you know it is a lie if you want me to assume you have good motives.

"I'm betting that by October, the R/R campaign will issue a titanium-clad promise to balance the budget by the 22nd century."

We don't have a definitive solution for that, we just know we don't like YOURS.

What a joke. The fact is that Ryan's budget barely gets us to reasonable over a long period of time. This has been apparent to those who would really prefer we just do what we have to do and get it done. But he'd rather not see us crash and burn just to get to the other side, so he offers something *moderate*.

Obama, OTOH, has nothing.

Nothing. At. All.

But that's okay, because when it comes to plans, it's enough to know that all right thinking people don't like Ryan's plan.

Someone should draw up a chart comparing "Candidates Barack Obama Endorsed" and "Candidates Sarah Palin Endorsed," with the little boxes with red X's or green checkmarks showing which ones won and lost.

I don't know their endorsement records, but it will be interesting however it ends up.

I'm betting that by October, the R/R campaign will issue a titanium-clad promise to balance the budget by the 22nd century.

bb mocks the triviality of the Ryan plan cuts even while Freder calls them "slashing entitlements". Maybe y'all should get on the same page as to why the Ryan plan is worse than the current non-plan of spending the country into debt-blivion, at which point there will be NO entitlements.

"The very rich get a tax cut" just means investment is encouraged by lowering taxes on it.

If you want higher taxes on passive income or just don't want the rich to get richer, then you are against creating jobs, period.

It's time to grow up. The money is out there waiting for this silly, childish class warfare to end. When it does, then and only then the jobs and the growth will return.

We had a correction to a bubble, which is nothing new. Happens all the time. It would have been over long ago if we just had a different government for the last 6 years. The difference this time is lack of a recovery, due to dumb policy and and rhetoric.

Or if you like your job creation of the Solyndra variety, then you might disagree, and are really the problem, not the solution.

Indigo Red - "Today, (by the Pres-VP schedules) the two men have lunch together; it is the only hour in the week that Barack is indeed the smartest guy in the room and Obama will not trade that for anything."

=====================Republicans can have fun with that. Deny that the meeting with Biden was the only time he was the smartest person in the room...pointing out he met alone with Eric Holder earlier in the week and also had a lunch three weeks back with Chris Matthews.

As for Hillary...suppose Obama did pick her and somehow wins. How long do you think it will take for the Clintonistas to dredge up Obama's school transcripts, finger him as the source of major intelligence leaks and begin a campaign to "gently request in media" that Obama step down because America is in crisis and NEEDS Hillary and Bill back in charge???

Obama knows this as a Vet of Chicago politics....the knife to the back would happen .

Yes, the political climate is the problem , but it is currently better than it has been for a long time, because a lot of people can understand the issue when the numbers are so far out of balance. The fact that people can still not agree is just indicative that some people will not ever be any help. So be it.

We need to first get rid of the people in power who are entirely on the wrong side of this problem, and then try to convince the others to make tough choices, and take enormous political risks. Then we need to not abandon them when they do. In the end, it's all on us, and the stakes are incredibly high for those who follow us. I hope we are remembered well. So far, we have not earned it at all.

Someone should draw up a chart comparing "Candidates Barack Obama Endorsed" and "Candidates Sarah Palin Endorsed," with the little boxes with red X's or green checkmarks showing which ones won and lost.

I don't know their endorsement records, but it will be interesting however it ends up.

Of course without being able to show cause and effect, it doesn't really seem that interesting to me.

“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’” Touré said to the apparent shock of his co-panelists. “You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

I had a Swiss bank account once. When I lived in Zurich, I went to the SBV and opened an account. They were very kind, professional and even spoke English. Of course, it wasn't the kind of Swiss bank account favored by guys like Marc Rich who got a last minute POTUS pardon by....

It's all the same people: the ones who want high minimum wages, free health care, safety nets everywhere regardless of need, union contract work rules for all, government ineptly handling every problem, and all paid for by the rich they demonize for not investing in their absolutely idiotic plans that couldn't secure a loan from Jesus if he just won the lottery.

It doesn't work, it's clearly stupid and counter productive, and you just keep crying for it, like spoiled brats expecting Dad to get a second job to buy you things. Half the people are now carrying the whole damn country, and a small fraction are carrying most of that, and all you do is attack them and expect them to pay more. Dad's tired of your shit. Move out and get a job. We need to clean the mess you made of the house with your half century of partying.

I had a Swiss bank account once. When I lived in Zurich, I went to the SBV and opened an account. They were very kind, professional and even spoke English. Of course, it wasn't the kind of Swiss bank account favored by guys like Marc Rich who got a last minute POTUS pardon by....

...I forget whom. "

The new IRS regulations are so onerous that you probably could not have such an account even if you lived there. The Swiss want nothing to do with Obama.

""The very rich get a tax cut" just means investment is enouraged by lowering taxes on it."

You mean, like they've invested their cuts for the last 30 years?

Oh, I get it. You're not talking about investing in America. You're talking about investing in China, in Swiss bank accounts, in secret Cayman Island accounts, undisclosed Bermuda corporations, or bank accounts in Panama (ground zero for laundering Latin American drug money).

You need an example.

My company needs a corrigated paper machine.A company in Argentina has a corrigated paper machine for sale.Originally the machine was built in France. It was sold to a paper company in Canada. When the Canadian comapany bought a newer corrigated paper machine it sold the old machine to its subsidiary in Argintina. It was first shipped to a machine shop ouside of Detroit to be rebuilt. I want to buy it for my carton plant in Peshtigo Wisconsin. The machine is located in Portugal. Since these machines cost millions I need to open a bank Account in a Countrry we all do business in. Say Switzerland.The deal itself will be in Euros, but I have to put up a surety bond in Argetine Dollars in an Agentine bank. The deal is successful and my bond is returned to my Swiss bank account. I chose a German company to crate and ship the machine to Wisconsin. The movers want to be paid in Duechmarks(?). All of the export paperwork and lawyer fees must be paid in whatever currency Portugal uses.Now imagine this happening a thousand of times a day with goods and services in the 100s of billions of dollars.International trade has been done this way since the age of clipper ships.